Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses calling constraints and the effect ('so humans can re-verify') plus the confidence scale semantics, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, what the review record looks like, or failure behavior. Useful context, but short of the full disclosure a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage requires.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose, then the hard calling constraints, then optional fields. Every sentence carries information, though 'Do not read project config' is cryptic and slightly interrupts the flow.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 14-parameter tool with a nested required object, no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and routing well but is incomplete on the many optional traceability parameters and on what the call produces or returns.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for the required 'confidence' field (0-100, higher = less need for human review) and lists four optional traceability fields, but leaves roughly ten parameters (gitSha, userId, actorType, agentModel, workflowId, etc.) unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: reporting existing SmartTests that an agent patched so humans can re-verify. This is distinct from sibling readers like list-tests-awaiting-verification and from mark-semantic-tests-distinct/mark-entity-distinct, so an agent can route correctly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly names the only valid caller context (fix-test-execution after test-incorrect patches) and explicitly excludes others (never from run-qa / create-tests; never for product-broken cases). This is a textbook when/when-not/alternatives statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.